PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
I just don't agree. American politicians seem weirdly loyal to Israel. And I think your conflating too easily country and religion. (As for the rest of your post, we're pretty much on the same page).
-
Those Arabs, all the same.
-
I had to look up the hypnotized/Svengali thing; I had no idea about the use of that word carrying an antisemitic quality until today. Do you think she intended it as a dog-whistle there? Because she did seem to profess ignorance or at least carelessness with her Benjamins comment. And America has been stupid-weird about Israel for a long, long time. It may not be dual loyalty, but I haven't seen a prominent politician criticize our policy on Israel like ever. And I've seen plenty of Jews who are not furious and appalled. (Bernie Sanders for one). As you point out, she was not named in the condemnation.
-
Like Palestinians do? Because that's the implication I'm getting here.
-
How does one make a valid criticism of Israel using its financial resources to affect US policy without inviting this trope?
-
Well, I made the conscious point of not quoting and replying to your post, so as not to directly respond or seem to put words in your mouth. I mean you took a post about 'outrage' over sentencing, and pivoted to Omar's comments on Israel; talk about an interesting and arguably fallacious rhetorical tactic...
-
Israel is not some sacred cow, and we should be able to criticize what has been a right wing regime for decades without inviting antisemitism.
-
Same judge sentenced a guy to 40 years for a meth possession because that's what the guidelines suggested (due to his priors no doubt), and the judge said something like "although it's excessive, I follow the law"
-
I binged Russian Dolls (NetFlix) last weekend and really enjoyed it.
-
Same guy, no? -
ON TOPIC, WARNING The leniency of the Manafort sentence, and the Judge's comments, demonstrate how far reaching tribalism goes.
-
We do wrangle with it, in terms of having evidence-based opinions. Please point out these other places. And discussions about how to have discourse are different than discussions about substantive issues, whatever they may be. Again, it's easy to criticize the topics of conversation and how those conversations take place, when you aren't contributing any topics (beyond how media etc. influences us). Poverty, healthcare, education are real things, and if those aren't the topics we should be talking about, what should we be talking about? Because it seems we'd only be talking about talking, which leads to that eventual question, now what?
-
Of course. I want Champ to play the game, not criticize the rules of the game, and not offer any insight to what better rules might be, or a better game to play. The meta-discussion becomes of thought-experiment and not one of real engagement about ideas. And I'd love more conservative voices here too. I enjoy the debate, and an echo chamber is worthless. I don't think any one here has any interest in keeping the conversation exclusive to any one ideology. That's why discussing politics on a Sports message board is cool, because we didn't come here for affirmation of our political beliefs.
-
I think there's further self-selection given the nature of Twins Daily, as we appeal to those who want more Twins news/discussion than what's available through mainstream media. I'd also argue that football fans tend to be more conservative than baseball fans, but we're just guessing. In law school, conservatives students would complain, with some merit, about how few professors were conservative; but when you dug into that question, you realized that for every position that opened the amount of liberal candidates exceeded the conservatives by 10 to 1 margins. Essentially, to balance out political affiliations/leanings, you'd have to set up an affirmative action for conservative professors. Generally, I think conservatives tend to want to get out in the market, than want to teach or become an academic. ("Those who can't do, teach") I'm not sure the same thing is happening at TD, but I some similar phenomena may be at work. (I'd also argue that Trump cultists (who may not even be 'real conservatives') aren't interested in engaging any body beyond their cult; so that cuts out of significant portion of Republicans).
-
I think if we'd follow your advice we wouldn't be having any kind of conversation at all. Like I, and many have pointed out, there's a healthy dose of skepticism around here, and you aren't pointing out something lacking here so much as patronizing us for having the gall to engage with one another about issues, even if ensconced in a narrow field.
-
Do you though? You haven't given your opinion on anything other than on the discussion itself. At certain point the rubber must meet the road. What is this differing opinion and on what subject? Your criticism about how we talk and where we get our evidence from rings hollow when you're not willing to weigh on any substantive discussions, use different source material, make unique arguments. It's simply pretty easy to challenge others to do better, than to put whatever you have in mind into action and see whether it's actually better and leads to more fruitful discussion with better practical results.
-
I am aware of this, but that's anecdotal evidence that we should misstrust the BBC altogether. Your suggesting that the journalistic are mere puppets of their state and corporate masters, certainly with their western education and modern journalistic norms, their world view is some what bound, but it is not false, and within those bounds, journalists give us clarity. I mean you did cite to the Washington Post, which is own by Bezos, should we discredit their journalism as well because problematic ownership or even a history that I'm sure has more than a few skeletons in closets.
-
We can all see the potential conflict, hence my professed wariness. Yet, the actual content produced by each is surprisingly thoughtful even if within a prescribed context. In other words you put too much weight on on potential problems, without actually judging the content. Largely, we should be proud of the content the BBC and NPR produce, esp. given their state ownership.
-
The way forward is mud, but his critique about our discussion tracking the days news is a bit fair, that he's being blind to the nuance around here does miss the forest for trees.
-
No evidence. It's supposition. But we should always be wary of state and corporate run institutions, often their interests are more aligned than we want to believe, arguably the same group of people control each. I trust BBC and NPR more than corporate media, but we should have some cynicism, and realize they are in tune in the moment, and don't advocate for our future.
-
Maybe. We don't have the counter-factual to weigh this reality against. Sure, we can say we'd like a better mode of spreading information, but unless someone puts forward that better mode, how is history shaped any differently.
-
I do demand better of the media, and I largely try to curate my news from sources that I believe deserve my patronage. But my role as a consumer is limited in affect, and as I said engagement is more important. As you suggest, the media is a window or a mirror; we can learn from the stories it tells. We should be cynical, but we are not all of what is presented is a falsehood, and we should weigh the credibility of the source and against the subject matter, but without the media, we would not learn of both trivialities and also real world events. Speaking of trivialities, sports/twins
-
We are all trying to fight the good fight. And we balance that between what is possible given our current society and what is ideal. To abandon that which is good but flawed yet politically possible, in favor of the perfect is to do nothing. We talk about this tension a lot around here actually.
-
It's just fodder, to get to the nuance, the realness. Some of us having been engaging these topics for the better parts of two decades, so we've covered a lot, and the bull**** media provides new fodder. We're also a practical bunch, so we entertain the notion what is politically possible, which sadly concedes the constraints of our time.
-
Because life goes on. The trivial becomes interesting because it is there, and when depth seems warranted it's present here, even if you don't see it yet. One can only scream life is bull****, before we all agree, and get back to the now what question. Engagement is more important than purity of content; we may not be able to change the world, but we make the endeavor to make our incremental differences. Should that be enough? No, that's why we have depression. #kiddingnotkidding
